Thanks for sharing your thought 
1 Like
I think it should be lowered even more so thereâs only 21,000 total DIGG prior to rebasing.
That means a 15% airdrop is 3,150
1 Like
Question:
Letâs assume 4,000 DIGG are airdropped, and 22,000 DIGG remain to be distributed for liquidity mining and other mechanismsâŚ
I assume that undistributed 22,000 is also subject to rebasing?
1 Like
This dude doesnât even put out any models or data to illustrate his point. Without actually going through that exercise, we donât know the impact of reducing the initial supply. Even with a reduced initial supply we could still see plenty of negative rebases to the extent that LP holders are still seeing huge IL in line with a 6250 supply and the only impact is that we saw a lower initial supply for basically no reason. People just like the psychological impact âoh gee, lower number over there, directionally, lower number is better in some scenarios, therefore, letâs lower the number!â Still, 70% of people vote yes with no data or models shown for support. Smh, you fucking people 
1 Like
It is amazing to me the number of people that argue against lowering the initial supply and giving the reason that there is no data. If there is no data then what, other than greed indicates that it would be better at the higher initial offering. Where is the data that shows this?
2 Likes
So your answer to âthereâs no data to support lowering the initial supplyâ is that âthereâs no data for anything, so letâs do it anyway!â Are you serious? It sounds a lot like you havenât done much analytical work in your life. Hopefully this helps:
You can run hypothetical models to simulate the effects of price changes and their impact on rebasing. Itâs a fairly simple exercise - an initial supply of X will rebase to Y when Z price change occurs. The proposal can take us through a few hypothetical scenarios and give us reasons to vote yes/no that are actually informed by something. Not just a feeling, which is the only thing people could possibly be voting âyesâ on given the information available in this proposal. These things can be sorted out and informed by crunching some hypothetical numbers. Itâs very easy. I find it stunning that so many people have no issues whatsoever making decisions with no support like this. But then again, I live in a country that elected a guy who told everyone to look into drinking bleach and disinfectant in order to âcureâ covid and then his cult followers believed him when he tried to say he was âjust kiddingâ, so sadly, Iâm not surprised at all.
As for âwhy keep it at 6250 when no models exist for thatâ? My point is not that 6250 is an optimal amount. I donât see any models in the original BIP for that either. Some analytical work should have been done to that end, so yeah, 6250 is almost definitely sub-optimal given intended outcomes as well. Iâm just saying that people already voted on 6250 through a legitimate process and now we are voting to undo that, even though we donât seem to have well-informed reasons to do so. Thatâs what my issue is and why I noted âNoâ on this one.
5 Likes
havenât seen a single model and the poll has votes hidden, so itâs less about what i think and more about the behavior for me⌠@arkgenesis
1 Like
already reached maximum number of likes⌠so responding instead of clicking heart
<3
i voted yes and contributed to the furthering of the discussion, people who have real insight are quiet ??? granted, i changed my vote to no now⌠am tired of the shenanigans
3 Likes
To me this discussion seems to doesnât make sense, because the largest unknown and hardest predictable variables are the BTC price and the timeline for the Digg distribution and corresponding BTC price at the go-live.
Since the team didnât communicate a transparent governance-process roadmap or timeline for the digg distribution, the BTC price might have violently crashed until then.
As well the distribution might happen during strong volatility phases in combination with violent digg rebases and market reactions. Since this is a new complex software and economic system, nobody is able to predict the outcome of certain variables when going live.
Iâve seen so many complex theories and systems behaving totally different after going-live, therefore I donât think any theoretical calculation will improve the decision process.
BIP 20: Define a transparent governance process and timeline for the Digg release
2 Likes
You are probably right. The discussion does not make a lot of sense, but neither the proposal to yet make another change of what was previously agreed on, without strong information to support this change. If we are going to vote again to change a previously voted or agreed decision (even when the snapshot vote has not taken place), we will keep having endless and pointless discussions.
I am aware this is going to pass, because it seems a âgood ideaâ to reduce initial supply even further. But I just donât like supporting or voting yes to any proposal that doesnât provide enough data to support why it is better and that encourages, as you say, a discussion that does not make any sense.
2 Likes
Could someone articulate why there should be anymore than one digg coin ? The hard cap is the best thing about bitcoin. Why not really honour the principle with digg ? It would allow digg to become a multi million dollar coin and capture the news on every new high. We could make this THE single most desirable coin in the whole history of crypto currency. Letâs chase the diggoshiâs.
1 Like
Yes. For me badger is a long term project. Wonât hurt if we can be more patient.
itâs not a matter of patience, itâs a matter of lack of consistent communication from the team
While I understand your point you miss mine. The same reasons that you are arguing against goes both ways. I have faith in the dev team and the decisions that they have made so far. While I may have had different decisions previously, I am trusting more in the community as well. Until you show me that my decision is flawed and is not in the good of the project, then save your assumptions about me and you decide for yourself. Also, for your information, I have almost 20 years of analytical experience. so if you want a lesson, I would be glad to educate you further. Appreciate the feedback though
1 Like
I voted yes, I see no reason to think that this can somehow damage the project, moreover, as far as I know, supply reduction was good for several DeFi projects .
1 Like
Uhhh no, not really. I didnât miss the points you just made because you never posted them. You literally only commented on the absence of evidence that keeping the distribution the same will be better than reducing it. You didnât say anything about having blind faith in the development team or blindly trusting community proposals. Literally nothing. If you want to blindly trust people, go for it man lol.
But why are you trying to now say that I missed those points? Thatâs a pretty lazy rhetorical strategy lol - Step 1, make a point. Step 2, when an error is exposed in that point, claim âno, youâre missing my point.â Step 3, make an entirely new point and claim that the other person missed the entirely new point you never made.
Does that strategy ever actually work in your âanalytical experienceâ?
1 Like
basically team trying to say yâall pushing proposals. see how it feels?
I got to tell you @ygclyde I personally donât appreciate the way youâre making it seem like we are delaying things and trying to pull a fast one on the community. Thatâs totally ridiculous.
Nothing was ever voted on with snapshot which means we have things to do as a collective before official decisions are made. There was EXTENSIVE conversations on the forum along with numerous polls.
The models in previous BIPs and general discussions support the financial side although much of the is unknown since there are so many factors at play with launch.
Also we never officially announced anything because itâs not ours to announce. Itâs the communities and when they make the decisions it will launch.
With all that noise do you think it makes sense to just push a product out? Ofcourse not we need to further clarify with the community exactly what they want and the parameters.
Overall much of the consistent negative criticism comes from folks that think they are loosing a couple bucks on the airdrop. This is much bigger than that and we only get 1 shot.
Common guysâŚ
20 Likes
Agreed.
When I thought they (the devs) were trying to pull a fast one regarding the airdrop allocation being dropped from 14.5% to 9.5% of initial supply (5% going to "early contributors), I was the first to point that out with a post saying â@EVERYONE PLEASE READ BEFORE 2nd VOTE, Where does the 5% of the airdrop go to? Who are these early contributors and how is that 5% being divided amongst them in what manner for what contribution?â. I made a post on that BIP to get everyoneâs attention. They (the devs) responded rapidly and amended their mistake on the edit of the airdrop % and said that theyâve gone away from the âearly contributorâ model as it it doesnât allow for a fair distribution since the DAO has grown much larger. This is PROOF that they are thinking about the greater good of the DAO. They couldâve just said âNO, weâre keeping 5% for the âearly contributorsâ of the 14.5% of the airdrop as that what was posted on the original medium articles.â But they didnât.
My point is, Iâd be the first to voice out something if I thought they were trying to pull a fast one on us. I donât think this is the case with BIP 19. They have nothing to gain from a decreased initial supply.
I was there with you @ygclyde saying âNOâ to this at first, but realized that âYESâ is much better for the productivity of the DAO and overall long-term success for us as an organization.
We have to support each other and yes - discussions are nice - but please lets not accuse the devs of trying something tricky on us with this BIP.
The only things I see people are complaining about (because Iâve been there) is a reduction in airdrop which means less $$. Overall, this decision is more in line with the previous BIP with votes on the initial supply. BTC price has been up since then as well per Mr Poâs reply on this thread. 4000 initial supply is very reasonable.
Letâs collaborate, support, and harness positivity which will make this DAO - and ultimately ALL OF US - thrive.
PROOF (personal message to me from @Spadaboom) :
Letâs put this in a SNAPSHOT vote and delay no longer. The community has voted.
2 Likes